Further to Philip Davies' piece this morning, Shrewsbury and Atcham MP Daniel Kawczynski responds to Power 2010's targeting him as an MP who is "failing democracy".
One of the most important advantages of elections is that they regularly stimulate debate, offering people the opportunity to learn more about issues which will affect them and their families. Given the dreadful effects of Gordon Brown's recession, most people I meet on the doorstep are talking about jobs, training, education and their overall financial security, particularly in old age. But other issues should not be neglected, which is why I welcome the interest an organisation called Power 2010 has shown in this constituency and my own views on three issues important to them: our electoral system, the House of Lords and trust in politics.
While a "WANTED" poster featuring my picture may not fully set out their views on these subjects, I thought it would be helpful to share my views on each of them more fully. Their campaign has heartened me greatly as we have had so many calls from constituents rallying to our cause as a result of seeing their negative campaign. I don’t think that Power 2010 have realised that people are sick and tiered of negative campaigning but instead want to hear positive debating about what people believe in without attacking others for their views. This organisation is funded by Lib Dem activists in London and as we all know Lib Dems are not always the most honourable of opponents.
Power 2010 have not singled me out to campaign against after evaluating my local hard work for constituents or the hundreds of different causes I have promoted in Parliament over the last five years on behalf of my constituents. Instead, this London-based lobby group want local voters to throw me out because I am against an elected House of Lords and I am Chairman of the All Party group for the promotion of First Past the Post.
In five years of serving the people of Shrewsbury and having responded to the thousands of emails and letters that I get every month, not a single person has written to me in all that time on either of these issues. People have sought my help on issues that affect their day to day lives; Housing, CSA, Tax Credit problems, Pensions, Bus Services, Health issues - especially delays in operations and lack of medication for serious illnesses. These are the problems that face my constituents amongst many other issues and these are the issues on which I shall be campaigning over the course of the next General Election.
The people of my constituency want to know what differences there are between the parties in dealing with the financial deficit and improving and safeguarding vital local services. This organisation wants people to vote against me on two matters which I have spent very little time on since being elected and on which nobody has approached me. I wish they could spend a day with me in my surgery listening to the extraordinary problems that some of my constituents are facing and the urgency with which I have to act in order to protect them and their families. I am sure that those who have sought my help as their MP will be confused and disenchanted when they realise that an organisation such as this wants them to worry about the House of Lords and the voting system when they are awaiting vital treatment for Prostate Cancer or in need of a roof over their heads!
However, I do feel it is right that I set out my views on the issues they have raised, as in each case there are arguments on both sides, and these lobbyists have clearly made up their minds and don’t wish to engage in a proper debate.
My biggest concern over Proportional Representation comes from two personal experiences. Firstly I am very concerned about the lack of accountability and transparency in the current PR Voting System for European Elections. I have offered £100 to hundreds of constituents at public meetings over the last 5 years if they can name me any of the 5 MEPs that represent us in the European Parliament. So far I have not lost a penny as no one has been able to name them. They are voted in on a PR system to represent the whole of the West Midlands which is a vast area much larger in geographical terms and population terms than some European countries. This makes it very difficult to be in my view accountable to local people. None of our MEPs lives in Shropshire, none of them has offices in Shropshire, none of them holds surgeries in Shropshire and they have very few opportunities to visit our county. This is of great concern to me and I would be grateful if the campaigners would provide a response to this point.
Secondly, even if we had constituencies of my size under PR I am deeply concerned that under Alternative Voting some people would have only one vote count whereas other people would have their second preferences count and be able to affect the outcome with their second preference vote. In a highly marginal seat like Shrewsbury, if the two main parties - Conservative and Labour - were tied for votes after the first count, the votes of the BNP (which will have a candidate standing) once eliminated could affect the outcome of the result. Their second preference votes could mean that the Party coming second to start with could end up going ahead to win the election. That is also a concern and I would like to hear how these lobbyists deal with that argument.
The London campaigners talk about Parliamentary sleaze and the need to have a clean sweep of it. I agree with them on that, and we have seen that even now some senior Labour politicians have not learnt their lesson. However, I very much regret their misleading language which seeks to implicate me in recent scandals, as it is without foundation and, more importantly, does not help us debate the real issues properly. My own expenses are in order and I have always been very careful to ensure that I act with total transparency and probity in all dealings over expenses.
After careful thought, I judged that I should vote against detailed transparency on outside interests because I am very concerned about the lack of professionals standing for Parliament. I am worried that if all aspects of their second jobs have to be disclosed many professional people will simply not be willing to stand. I have no outside interests and my job as an MP is a full time and sole job for me. I have not sought any additional income during my time as an MP but I am very conscious that there are some Barristers, Doctors, Dentists and other skilled professional people in the House who also conduct their original professions.
These people add enormous weight to our debates, and can often be hugely influential because of their expertise and experience on the frontline. I spoke to some of these people before the vote and voted against full disclosure of all their interests as I feared that they would leave the Commons. The proposed Bill it was thought would mean they would have to declare the names of their clients and how much time they spent with them. As I am sure you can appreciate we need to massively raise the standard of MPs from a professional perspective and we should be encouraging people from professional backgrounds to enter the House. I myself have taken a pay cut of 75% to do the job and am happy to do that but will others who may not have the dedication and motivation to follow suit if every aspect of their financial transactions is being put in the public domain? For example, some of them have to maintain client confidentiality, especially lawyers.
Finally, I turn briefly to the House of Lords. Once again, the lobbyists simply assume that their case for abolishing our current system faces no opposing arguments. This is simply not the case. For example, if we elect a House of Lords, surely it will claim to have an equal right to determine laws and decide who should be Prime Minister as the House of Commons. If those elected to a successor body had bigger constituencies or bigger majorities, they might claim they should in fact have greater influence over the Commons. And how would we keep the enormous amount of expertise and experience the current system gives us in the Lords. It is in the Lords that much of the absolutely critical work of scrutinising every dot and comma in new laws is undertaken at the moment. The Lords are under less pressure from their party whips to hurry things through; if anything, they often deliberately slow down the legislative process to ensure we in the Commons make decisions calmly, not in the heat of the moment.
There are many more arguments on both sides of all three issues which I am happy to debate with any of my constituents; but as I have said already, I don’t find that these are the first things on the minds of the people of Shrewsbury. In fact, many will question why I spent the time writing this, rather than sorting out their child support, tax credits or place on a training scheme. 80% of the names on a small petition the lobbyists sent me this week were not even local electors! So, rest assured, I will now get on with those tasks, unless and until anyone actually living here asks me about them again. Somehow, I don’t think that’s going to be any time soon. It’s time for change in this country, and we can’t risk five more years of Gordon Brown. But that change is needed to secure jobs, improve our schools and hospitals and get criminals of the street, not to get diverted into meddling with our constitution, which has worked quite will for many centuries, and will work equally well at the next election when it enables a change of government and David Cameron becomes Prime Minister.